The complaint alleges that adjustable-rate home equity loans originated by AFC in Texas violate the Texas Constitution's requirement that such loans be scheduled to be repaid in substantially equal installments.

Plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals, damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court may grant.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the court on its own motion stayed the action, pending the resolution of class certification issues in a similar action pending before the court.

A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed, and there has been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiff's individual claims or the claims of the putative class.

In October 2006, as a result of the merger of Accredited Home Lender Holding Co. and Aimes Investment Corp., and the related merger of certain subsidiaries of AHLHC and AIC, American Home Lenders, Inc. succeeded to the position of AFC in the class action complaint.

AHL said at its Nov. 2 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that if a class were to be certified and were to prevail on the merits, the potential liability could have a material adverse effect on Accredited.

AAMES INVESTMENT: Calif., Wis. FCRA Violations Suits Consolidated -----------------------------------------------------------------Two class action complaints over allege violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by Aames Investment Corp. and Aames Funding Corp. have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and subsequently consolidated.

The complaints allege violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with prescreened offers of credit and are similar in nature to the complaint, "Phillips v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Company, et al.," brought in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

The Cooper complaint was transferred to the Central District of California and consolidated with the Webb complaint by stipulation of counsel on Sept. 29, 2006. A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed, and there has been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiffs' individual claims or the claims of the putative class.

In October 2006, by virtue of the merger of Accredited Home Lender Holding Co and AIC, and the related merger of certain subsidiaries of AHLHC and AIC, AHLHC and certain of its subsidiaries succeeded to the litigation interests of AIC and certain of its subsidiaries.

AHL said at its Nov. 2 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that if a class were to be certified and were to prevail on the merits, the potential liability could have a material adverse effect on Accredited.

ACCREDITED HOME: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Md. Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court, District of Maryland has yet to rule on the merits of a purported class action filed against Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. over allegations the company overcharges for its second lien loans fees.

In March 2006, AHL was served with a class action complaint, "Cabrejas v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.," brought in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland.

The complaint alleges that AHL's origination of second lien loans in Maryland violated the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law and Consumer Protection Act in that fees charged on such loans exceeded 10% of the respective loan amounts.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals, damages, disgorgement of fees, pre-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court may grant.

On April 13, 2006, AHL removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. On May 15, 2006, AHL filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second cause of action alleging a violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act on the basis that full disclosure of the fees cannot be an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

A hearing date for the motion to dismiss has not been set. A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed, and there has been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiff's individual claims or the claims of the putative class.

The suit is "Cabrejas et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., Case No. 8:06-cv-00975-AW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge Alexander Williams, Jr.

ACCREDITED HOME: Ill. Mortgage Loan Fees Suit Remains Pending--------------------------------------------------------------Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. continues to face a class action over allegations of consumer fraud related to the amount of fees it pays to third parties in connection with residential mortgage loans.

In December 2002, Accredited Home was served with a complaint and motion for class certification in a class action, "Wratchford et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.," brought in Madison County, Illinois under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the consumer protection statutes of the other states in which AHL does business and the common law of unjust enrichment.

The complaint alleges that AHL has a practice of misrepresenting and inflating the amount of fees it pays to third parties in connection with the residential mortgage loans that it funds.

Plaintiffs claim to represent a nationwide class consisting of others similarly situated, that is, those who paid AHL to pay, or reimburse AHL's payments of, third-party fees in connection with residential mortgage loans and never received a refund for the difference between what they paid and what was actually paid to the third party.

They are seeking to recover damages on behalf of themselves and the class, in addition to pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and any other relief the court may grant.

On Jan. 28, 2005, the court issued an order conditionally certifying:

-- a class of Illinois residents with respect to the alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act who, since Nov. 19, 1997, paid money to AHL for third-party fees in connection with residential mortgage loans and never received a refund of the difference between the amount they paid to AHL and the amount AHL paid to the third party; and

-- a nationwide class of claimants with respect to an unjust enrichment cause of action included in the original complaint who, since Nov. 19, 1997 paid money to AHL for third-party fees in connection with residential mortgage loans and never received a refund of the difference between the amount they paid AHL and the amount AHL paid the third party.

The court conditioned its order limiting the statutory consumer fraud act claims to claimants in the State of Illinois on the outcome of a case pending before the Illinois Supreme Court in which one of the issues is the propriety of certifying a nationwide class based on the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

That case has now been decided in a manner favorable to AHL's position, and, in light of this ruling, AHL intends to petition the Illinois Supreme Court for a supervisory order reversing the lower court's class certification decision, the lower court having denied AHL's motion for reconsideration of:

-- the court's order granting class certification, and

-- the court's denial of AHL's request for leave to take an interlocutory appeal of such order.

There has not yet been a ruling on the merits of either the plaintiffs' individual claims or the claims of the class, and the ultimate outcome of this matter and the amount of liability, if any that may result is not presently determinable.

The company reported no material development in the case at its Nov. 2 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACCREDITED HOME: Ga. Court Refuses to Certify Overtime Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denies certification to a lawsuit filed by former commissioned loan officers of Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. alleging that they were owed overtime pay by the company.

In June 2005, AHL was served with a complaint, "Williams et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.," brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The two named plaintiffs are former commissioned loan officers of AHL, and the complaint alleges that AHL violated federal law by requiring the plaintiffs to work overtime without compensation.

Plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees, the allegedly unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

Plaintiffs' motion to certify a collective class was denied on July 25, 2006, leaving the two named plaintiffs as the only plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

On Aug. 24, 2006, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the 11th Circuit requesting that it reverse the lower court's order denying plaintiffs' motion to certify a collective class.

However, the court issued an Order to Show Cause why it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear this issue, and plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their appeal.

The ruling does not preclude the filing of other non-class action lawsuits alleging similar claims on behalf of other current or former employees.

The suit is "Williams, et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-01681-TWT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.

ACCREDITED HOME: No Ruling Yet in Calif. FCRA Violations Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court, Central District of California has yet to rule on the merits of a purported class action filed against Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. and Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. over allegations of Fair Credit Reporting Act violations, according to the company's Nov. 2 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Plaintiff's remaining claim is that AHL's offer of credit did not meet FCRA's "firm offer" requirement. A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed, and there has been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiff's individual claims or the claims of the putative class

In September 2005, AHL and AHLHC were served with a class action complaint, "Phillips v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Company, et al.," brought in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with prescreened offers of credit made by AHL. The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals, damages, pre-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court may grant.

-- dismiss with prejudice plaintiff's claim that AHL's offer of credit failed to include the clear and conspicuous disclosures required by FCRA;

-- strike plaintiff's request for declaratory and injunctive relief; and

-- sever plaintiff's claims as to AHL and AHLHC from those made against other defendants unaffiliated with AHL or AHLHC.

Plaintiff's remaining claim is that AHL's offer of credit did not meet FCRA's "firm offer" requirement. A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed, and there has been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiff's individual claims or the claims of the putative class.

The suit is "Pamela Phillips, et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Company, et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-00851-CJC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Cormac J. Carney with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.

ACCREDITED HOME: Settles Consolidated Suit by Calif. Employees--------------------------------------------------------------Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. reached a settlement in a suit that alleges the company violated California labor laws by misclassifying employees, failing to pay for overtime work, and failing to keep appropriately keep payroll record.

In January 2004, AHL was served with a complaint, "Yturralde v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.," brought in Sacramento County, California.

The named plaintiff is a former commissioned loan officer of AHL, and the complaint alleges that AHL violated California and federal law by misclassifying the plaintiff and other non-exempt employees as exempt employees, failing to pay the plaintiff on an hourly basis and for overtime worked, and failing to properly and accurately record and maintain payroll information.

Plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and all of the company's other similarly situated current and former employees, lost wages and benefits, general damages, multiple statutory penalties and interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and also seeks to enjoin further violations of wage and overtime laws and retaliation against employees who complain about such violations.

AHL has been served with 11 substantially similar complaints on behalf of certain other former and current employees, which have been consolidated with the Yturralde action.

Subject to court approval, the parties have agreed to a settlement with respect to the named plaintiffs and with respect to a class of current and former AHL employees, which the parties will jointly request the court to certify. The settlement amount was undisclosed.

APOLLO GROUP: Schoengold Sporn Files Securities Suit in Ariz.-------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. announces that on Nov. 2, 2006, it filed a class action against Apollo Group Inc. and certain key officers and/or directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

Since the filing, Apollo has announced that a restatement of its historical financial statements will be certain "to record additional charges for compensation expenses" relating to its stock options granting practices.

This is a material development from the company's Oct.18, 2006 announcement that a restatement could be "possible." In addition, the company also announced on Friday that its Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Kenda B. Gonzales has resigned and Chief Accounting Officer Dan Bachus has been placed on "administrative leave." Both Ms. Gonzales an M. Bachus are named as individual defendants in the complaint.

While the exact amount of the additional charges, resulting tax and accounting impact, or the applicable periods to be restated are yet to be determined; Apollo filed a Form 8-K on Friday providing details on the deficiencies uncovered in its ongoing investigation. The company said it expects to restate financial results at least as far back as 2001 and that it may face "significant" tax liability.

On Friday, Apollo stock price declined 98 cents to $35.02 on the Nasdaq, after hitting its 52-week low of $33.50.

As stated in our previous press release, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds have brought the current lawsuit on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Apollo securities during the period between Nov. 28, 2001 and Oct. 18, 2006.

ARCHWAY COOKIES: Recalls Oatmeal Cookies Over Undeclared Content---------------------------------------------------------------Archway Cookies LLC of Battle Creek, Michigan, is voluntarily recalling approximately 633 packages of only the 13.75oz Classic Oatmeal Big Batch Homestyle Cookies because a small number of those packages may not indicate the presence of an undeclared allergen (tree nuts, specially walnuts).

Some of the cookies subject to recall contain tree nuts (walnuts), but the product labels indicate only that the products may contain traces of peanuts and tree nuts as part of the cookies' ingredient mixture. Persons who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to walnuts run the risk of possible allergic reactions if they consume these cookies.

The cookies subject to recall are Archway Classic Big Batch Homestyle Cookies. Each package bears the date code "Best Before Jan 11 07 AX." The cookies were packaged on October 19, 2006 and were distributed to retail stores in the eastern half of the United States, specifically in states east of the Mississippi River. The problem was discovered by the company, which has received no reports of illnesses or allergic reactions associated with consumption of these products.

Media or others with questions about the recall should contact Ray Hehman of Marketing Partners Communications, Inc at 415-421-4141 or E-mail: mkptnr@aol.com.

The court also set a Nov. 21, 2006 hearing for the final approval of the deal. Aztar Corp. was named as a defendant in several purported class actions pending in various state courts throughout the U.S. over certain provision in its merger agreement with Pinnacle Entertainment.

Between approximately March 17, 2006 and April 24 2006, five substantially identical putative class actions were filed against the company and the members of its board of directors (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 19, 2006).

Two of the lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa, one was filed in the Nevada District Court in and for Clark County, and two were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to conduct an auction or active market check prior to entering into the merger agreement with Pinnacle and by causing company to agree to the termination fee provisions in the Pinnacle merger agreement, which allegedly will deter other bidders for the company.

The complaints seek, among other things, an injunction against the Pinnacle merger, rescission of the Pinnacle merger if it is consummated and fees and costs.

Plaintiffs in the "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519" actions moved on April 11, 2006 for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring the company from paying to Pinnacle the termination fee and expenses provided for in the Pinnacle merger agreement. On April 27, 2006, the Arizona court denied the "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519" motions in all respects.

On May 15, 2006, the defendants and "Drauch" entered a stipulation to stay the "Drauch" proceedings pending disposition of the "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519" litigation.

On April 20 and May 3, 2006, respectively, the defendants moved to dismiss the "Lowinger" and "Heady" for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and to dismiss or stay the actions in light of the prior filed Arizona cases.

In addition, the defendants moved for an order-staying discovery in the "Lowinger" action pending the resolution of their motion to dismiss or stay this action.

On May 3, 2006, the defendants and "Lowinger" entered a joint stipulation to stay the proceedings pending disposition of the "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519" litigation.

On May 4, 2006, the defendants moved to consolidate the two Delaware actions, and the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the motion on May 15, 2006.

On May 25, 2006, the defendants, "Lowinger" and "Heady" entered a revised joint stipulation to stay the two Delaware actions pending disposition of the "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519" litigation.

On Aug. 25, 2006, the plaintiffs in "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519," acting on behalf of themselves and all persons who beneficially owned Aztar common stock at any time between Feb. 15, 2005 and the date of the consummation of the merger, or if the merger is not consummated, through and including the record date for voting thereon, entered into a settlement with the Aztar defendants.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Aztar defendants acknowledge that prosecution of the actions was a factor in their subsequent decisions to decline to agree to pay enhanced termination fees and expenses in connection with Pinnacle's $43 per share acquisition proposal made on or about April 18, 2006, and Ameristar Casinos, Inc.'s $45 per share acquisition proposal made on or about April 20, 2006, which in turn, facilitated the ongoing auction of Aztar.

In addition, Plaintiffs' counsel reviewed and provided comments to the Aztar's counsel on the preliminary proxy statement concerning the deal, and the defendants took plaintiffs' counsel's comments into account in preparing the definitive proxy statement disseminated to Aztar common and preferred stockholders for purposes of voting on the deal.

Finally, the company agrees to pay plaintiffs' counsel, subject to court approval, attorney's fees and litigation expenses awarded in an amount up to $500,000 in the aggregate.

The settlement was preliminarily approved on Sept. 1, 2006, according to the company's Oct. 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period Sept. 30, 2006.

On Sept. 11, Aztar officials reportedly notified shareholders that Judge Robert E. Miles of Maricopa County has set a fairness hearing date for Nov. 21, 2006 on a settlement proposal in "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519."

If a judgment approving the settlement of the Arizona Actions is entered, all claims against the defendants and Pinnacle in "Glasmann" and "Plumbers Local Union No. 519" will be resolved and the defendants will move to dismiss the remaining actions described above based on such judgment.

Based in Phoenix, Arizona, Aztar Corp. (NYSE: AZR) -- http://www.aztar.com/-- develops and operates casinos in major domestic gaming markets in the U.S. The company has casino hotel facilities in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and Las Vegas and Laughlin, Nevada. It also operates riverboat casinos in Caruthersville, Missouri, and Evansville, Indiana.

BROCADE COMMS: Calif. Court Denies Stock Suit Dismissal Motion --------------------------------------------------------------Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Brocade Communications Systems and certain of its current and former officers, The San Jose Mercury News reports.

However, the judge gave the plaintiffs 60 days to amend their complaint against certain board members on Brocade's audit committee and the company's auditors, KPMG.

Beginning on or about May 19, 2005, several securities class action complaints were filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 13, 2006).

These actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock from February 2001 to May 2005. They came on the heels of the company's restatement of certain financial results due to stock-based compensation accounting issues.

On Jan. 12, 2006, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On April 14, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock from May 2000 to May 2005.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among others, violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

It generally alleges that the company and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding the company's business and operations and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the defendants.

The suit is "Prena Smajlaj, et al. v. Brocade Communication Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-2042," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Charles R. Breyer.

CALIFORNIA: Taxicab Drivers Sue Cab Companies Over Gate Fees------------------------------------------------------------San Francisco taxicab drivers filed a purported class action against three cab companies, claiming the companies owe them millions of dollars in overcharged gate fees, money drivers pay per shift to lease a taxi, The New York Times reports.

Filed in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of United Taxicab Workers, the local union, and several drivers, the suit claims that under a 2003 ordinance designed to give drivers heath care coverage, owners should have dropped the gate fees to $85 from $91.50 by Sept. 1, 2004, if no medical plan was in place.

The health plan has been stalled by questions over how to finance it. Attorneys for drivers estimate the owners owe cabbies $6 million to $8 million.

CANADA: Ontario Appellate Throws Out West Nile Virus Lawsuit------------------------------------------------------------The Ontario Court of Appeals threw out a class action launched by the family of Mississauga resident George Eliopoulos, who died after contracting West Nile Virus, the Mississauga News reports.

The class consists of more than 40 West Nile victims and families of victims. The suit alleged the provincial government could and should have prevented the West Nile outbreak in 2002.

But Ontario's highest court ruled that the government couldn't have prevented someone from contracting the disease.

The suit further claimed the province failed to warn people in areas of elevated risk. The province sought to strike the statement of claim on the grounds that it was baseless.

It argued that it owed no "duty of care" to any particular individual to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, the report said.

Lawyer Doug Elliott, who represented the West Nile victims in the suit, said if the ruling is allowed to stand, it could mean ordinary people can never hold public health officials accountable in a court of law when their careless mistakes hurt and even kill people.

Mr. Elliott said his clients are considering asking the Supreme Court of Canada to review the case.

Mosquitoes that become carriers by feeding on infected birds transmit the West Nile Virus. It was detected in birds first, followed by human cases.

Mild symptoms of West Nile include headaches, fever, vomiting and a rash on the stomach, chest or back. More severe symptoms include dizziness and disorientation. People most at risk are the elderly and those with weakened immune systems.

Mr. Eliopoulos was bitten by a mosquito near his home and became infected with West Nile in 2002 and died in 2003 from complications.

West Nile was first detected in Peel in birds and mosquitoes in 2001. Human cases occurred for the first time in 2002. A total of 57 residents were infected during that season, with two deaths. The majority of the cases were in Mississauga, according to the report.

In 2003, there were 10 human cases and no deaths reported. In 2004, no human cases were reported in Peel. Last year there were three cases: two in Mississauga and one in Brampton, the report added.

ELI LILLY: Downplays Merits of Ind. Racial Discrimination Suit --------------------------------------------------------------Eli Lilly and Co. spokeswoman Carla Cox responded to a lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against the company for alleged racial discrimination, The Tribune-Star reports.

In a written statement, Ms. Cox said, "Lilly takes any allegations of unfair treatment very seriously. We are committed to conducting a full investigation of any allegations and responding with appropriate actions based upon the results of those efforts. Respect and fair treatment of people are the cornerstones of the Lilly corporate culture. We do not tolerate racial discrimination nor do we condone any behavior contrary to our code of ethics."

In April, several workers of drug Company Eli Lilly & Co. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for alleged racial discrimination (Class Action Reporter, April 26, 2006).

Three former and one current Eli Lilly employee alleged the company paid black employees less than their white counterparts, passed them over for promotions and verbally abused them.

The alleged discrimination dates back to 2003. One of the plaintiffs is Cassandra Welch, who was fired in mid-2004 for an unrelated reason.

The suit is seeking class action on behalf of more than 1,000 black employees. It is asking unspecified damages, lost compensation and an order enjoining Lilly against future discrimination.

The other plaintiffs are current sales representative, Sheryl A. Davis of Memphis, Tennessee, and two former sales reps, Jarmaine Bromell of Philadelphia and Raynard Tyson of North Carolina.

Earlier, Joshua Rose, attorney with the Rose and Rose law firm, was at the Hyte Community Center, in Terre Haute to take statements as part of a race discrimination lawsuit against Eli Lilly and Co. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2006).

Mr. Rose took statements from "African Americans who believe they suffered discrimination at Lilly. We're collecting information." Statements though will not be used during trial without prior permission.

The suit is "Welch et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, Case No. 1:06-cv-00641-RLY-VSS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge Richard L. Young, with referral to Judge V. Sue Shields.

EXELON CORP: Amended Complaints Filed in Braidwood Lawsuits-----------------------------------------------------------Amended complaints were filed in three class actions against Exelon Corp. that were filed in whether state or federal courts in Illinois over allegations that it spilled more than six million gallons of tritium-laced water from its Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant into the surrounding community over a 10-year period and failed to notify residents and regulatory officials.

On March 13, 2006, a class action was filed against the company, Exelon Generation Co. and Commonwealth Edison Co., as the prior owner of Braidwood, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons who live or own property within 10 miles of Braidwood.

The plaintiffs primarily seek:

-- a court-supervised fund for medical monitoring for risks associated with alleged exposures to tritium; and

-- compensation for diminished property values.

Exelon filed a motion to dismiss the case, contending that the plaintiffs cannot meet the dose threshold required to maintain a public liability action under the Price-Anderson Act. This motion was denied.

On March 14 and 23, 2006, 37 area residents filed two separate but identical lawsuits against the same defendants in the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois alleging property contamination and seeking compensation for diminished property values.

The company removed these cases to federal court, and all three cases were assigned to the same judge. It has submitted its answer to the class action. The company's motions to dismiss the amended complaints in the other two lawsuits were denied in part on July 19, 2006.

The court dismissed all claims premised on violations of Illinois environmental statutes. The court has set a schedule for a class certification motion and discovery for all three suits.

On Sept. 29, 2006, amended complaints were filed in all three cases. Seven plaintiffs withdrew from the cases, and 18 additional plaintiffs were added.

The first federal suit is "Duffin et al. v. Exelon Corp. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01382," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Suzanne B. Conlon.

The suit accuses GlaxoSmithKline of promoting the drug for use by children and adolescents while withholding negative information about the medication's safety and effectiveness.

The class consists of all U.S. residents who bought Paxil and Paxil CR, a controlled-release version of the drug. Claimants are required to present records of purchases to get a full refund. Those without a proof of purchase can get $15.

Judge Mendelsohn ordered plaintiff attorney Stephen Tillery to hire Rust Consulting of Minneapolis to supervise and administer the providing of the notice to class.

Rust Consulting is to begin sending legal notice of the class by Dec. 31. Deadline to file claims is Aug. 31, 2007. Filing of objections and request for exclusion is until Feb. 23, 2007.

The fairness hearing is set March 9, 2007 at 10 a.m.

The plaintiffs in the suit are Teri Hoormann, Mary Kopsie, and Bonita and Mark Helfer.

GLOBAL ONLINE: Owner Accused of Fraud in $4M Suit Filed in Penn.---------------------------------------------------------------- The owner of E-Gold, Global Online Depository, and Global Online Direct is facing a $4 million class action in Allegheny County Court in Pennsylvania, according to the Courthouse News.

Larry E. "Buck" Hunter is accused of defrauding hundreds of investors in an online Ponzi scheme that promises 365 percent annual returns on investments in his companies, the report said. He claimed his businesses earn profits from lending money tied to an electronic gold bullion depository.

The Steel City Group filed the complaint, which is seeking $1 million damages and $3 million in punitive damages.

Representing the plaintiff is Michael Bruzzesi.

INDIAN TRUST: Proposal Put Forward Seeking to Settle "Cobell"-------------------------------------------------------------A proposal has been put forward that could settle a protracted class action filed against the federal government and redefine the way the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) does business, Debra Gruszecki of The Desert Sun reports.

The proposal was made at the 16th annual Indian Land Consortium Symposium at Morongo Casino Resort & Spa in California. It would change Senate Bill 1439, the Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005, in an attempt to settle the decade-old suit, "Cobell v. Norton," which is now known as "Cobell v. Kempthorne."

Not only will the change pay billions to Native Americans, but it could drastically alter the way the U.S. Department of Interior's BIA does business.

The changes would reallocate certain decision-making authority and legal responsibility from the BIA to Indian tribes, and individuals. However, it will not remove the trust status of Indian lands.

In essence, the sought after changes is intended to reform the way the federal government manages Indian trust funds and assets.

The two-page proposal, which was passed out to more than 400 conference participants from across the country, has been met with some criticisms though.

According to Keith Harper, a staff attorney for the Native American Civil Rights Fund, who is representing the plaintiffs in "Cobell," none of the proposed changes were suggested by those who are involved in its proposed $8 billion settlement.

Mr. Harper pointed out that he's concerned about the proposed settlement, since the lawsuit that sought a historical accounting and trust fund reform for money and accounts belonging to 500,000 landowners does not spell out how it will resolve all trust claims. "The potential exposure in this case could be more than $200 billion," he added.

Sally Willet, a probate judge for 60 Indian tribes and communities in Arizona, Southern California and Nevada, also expressed skepticism towards the proposal.

She pointed out that "Cobel" was about mismanagement, and now, without having had that case litigated, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee is prepared to propose changes to fix a process.

Other concerns were raised about a provision that eliminates the federal government's liability during the transition period and a proposed change to consolidate all Indian land allotments into 10 or fewer owners for each tract of land within 10 years.

However, staff members for Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who introduced the Trust Reform Act last July and chairs the Committee on Indian Affairs, maintain that the proposed changes suggested by the administration were introduced to spur dialogue to resolve these longstanding issues and debates.

They cautioned that the changes should not be looked at as a roadmap, but the way things may be 10 or more years down the road.

To try to tap the view of Indian tribal leaders, the Senate has created a spot on its Web site, http://www.Indian.Senate.comto solicit comments on the proposed changes.

Allison Binney, general counsel to the Senate Affairs Committee, said that they've made it clear that no decisions will be made until they hear from Indian Country.

Case Background

Elouise Pepion Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe in Montana, filed the class action on June 10, 1996 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It seeks to force the federal government to account for billions of dollars belonging to approximately 500,000 American Indians and their heirs, and held in trust since 1887.

Specifically, the case involves royalties for farming, grazing, mining, logging and other economic activities on tribal lands. It dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to break up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40 to 160 acres to some individual Native Americans.

Back then, the government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber, grazing and coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds for Indians and their survivors.

Through document discovery and courtroom testimony, the case has revealed mismanagement, ineptness, dishonesty and delay by federal officials, which lead a federal judge to declare their conduct "fiscal and governmental irresponsibility in its purest form."

As the case moved on, new revelations of false testimony, financial misconduct and bureaucratic retaliation continued to surface.

The purpose of the litigation is two-fold:

-- to force the government to account for the money, and

-- to bring about permanent reform of the system.

The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., v. Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 96-1285 (RCL)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, under Judge Royce C. Lamberth.

On Feb. 11, 2005, NLIC was named in a class action filed in Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio entitled, "Michael Carr v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co."

The complaint seeks recovery for breach of contract, fraud by omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment.

It also seeks unspecified compensatory damages, disgorgement of all amounts in excess of the guaranteed maximum premium and attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 2, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification on the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims.

The court certified a class consisting of all residents of the U.S. and the Virgin Islands who, during the class period, paid premiums on a modal basis to NLIC for term life insurance policies issued by NLIC during the class period that provide for guaranteed maximum premiums, excluding certain specified products.

Excluded from the class are NLIC; any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of NLIC; all employees, officers and directors of NLIC; and any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the State of Ohio who may hear the case. The class period is from Feb. 10, 1990 through Feb. 2, 2006; the date the class was certified. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, according to the company's Nov. 3 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2006

NATIONWIDE LIFE: Appeal Planned in Mutual Funds Investment Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs intend to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fourth Circuit the dismissal of the "Mutual Funds Investment Litigation," which names Nationwide Life Insurance Co. as defendant.

On April 13, 2004, NLIC was named in the class action, "Woodbury v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co.," which was filed in Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.

NLIC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on June 1, 2004. On Dec. 27, 2004, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and included in the multi-district proceeding, "In Re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation."

In response, on May 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint purporting to represent, with certain exceptions, a class of all persons who held -- through their ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product -- units of any NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that included foreign securities in their portfolios and that experienced market timing or stale price trading activity.

The first amended complaint purports to disclaim, with respect to market timing or stale price trading in NLIC's annuities sub-accounts, any allegation based on NLIC's untrue statement, failure to disclose any material fact, or usage of any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection with any class member's purchases or sales of NLIC annuities or units in annuities sub-accounts.

The plaintiff claims, in the alternative, that if NLIC is found with respect to market timing or stale price trading in its annuities sub-accounts, to have made any untrue statement, to have failed to disclose any material fact or to have used or employed any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, then the plaintiff purports to represent a class, with certain exceptions, of:

all persons who, prior to NLIC's untrue statement, omission of material fact, use or employment of any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, held -- through their ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product -- units of any NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that included foreign securities in their portfolios and that experienced market timing activity.

The first amended complaint alleges common law negligence and seeks to recover damages not to exceed $75,000 per plaintiff or class member, including all compensatory damages and costs. On June 1, 2006, the district court granted NLIC's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.

On June 30, 2006, the plaintiff filed a notice with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals of its intent to appeal the District Court's decision, according to the company's Nov. 3 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2006

The suit is "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-03944-JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, under Judge J. Frederick Motz.

OHIO: West Toledo Residents Sue City, Others Over Flooding ----------------------------------------------------------The city of Toledo, Lucas County, and the owner of nearby railroad tracks in Ohio are facing a purported class action filed by homeowners who were among dozens of residents besieged by damaging floodwaters at least three times during summer storms, The Toledo Blade reports.

Diled in Lucas County Common Pleas Court, the suit was assigned to Judge Gary Cook. Brian and Kerry Bolander and Rebecca Hall filed it on behalf of themselves and others whose homes were similarly damaged by floodwaters in June and July.

The suit alleges that the defendants were responsible for problems in the drainage of Shantee Creek and defects in the design, construction, maintenance, and management of sanitary and storm sewer systems, factors the plaintiffs alleged caused extensive flooding on June 21, July 4-5, July 10, and July 12.

Jacksonville, Fla.-based CSX Transportation, which operates the railroad tracks that run parallel to Laskey Road just north of the plaintiffs' neighborhood, is accused of failing to maintain and redesign a culvert to prevent obstructions of the Shantee Creek drain.

Other defendants named in the suit included, Lucas County commissioners, Lucas County Engineer Keith Earley, CSX Transportation, and several unnamed John Does.

Plaintiffs, represented by Williams, Jilek, Lafferty, Gallagher & Scott, believe that the class would consist of at least 75 other homeowners and involve more than 150 residents.

In addition to asking that the complaint receive certification for class action, plaintiffs want the defendants to adopt an emergency plan of action to improve sewer systems to prevent future flooding and "expeditiously" repair damage to the property of the homeowners.

They also seek for undetermined compensatory damages as well as payment for costs and attorney fees in bringing the lawsuit.

OIL COMPANIES: Post-Katrina Fueled Gasoline Prices Prompts Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Jackson, Mississippi lawyer John Arthur Eaves Jr. commenced a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against oil companies and distributors over the increase in gasoline prices after Hurricane Katrina, the AFX reports.

The suit, which listed thirty-nine Mississippi residents most from the southern part of the state as plaintiffs, accuses the defendants of price gouging during an emergency.

The lawsuit claims gasoline prices in Mississippi were at or near $3 after Katrina "and it was only two years ago that Mississippians were paying less than $1.50 a gallon."

According to the lawsuit, "Hurricane Katrina was the worst natural disaster to befall our state, and it is unthinkable that anyone would try to take advantage of Mississippians and our businesses at such a time."

It further states, "With skyrocketing gas prices over the last year and record oil company profits, it is time to take a stand to fight this egregious behavior and hold accountable those responsible for escalating gas prices that are busting the budgets of Mississippi families and businesses from Biloxi to Batesville."

According to Mr. Eaves, he will ask a federal judge to allow the case to be tried as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of anyone who has purchased gasoline in Mississippi since Katrina.

The suit is "Coleman et al v. Chevron USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00249-KS-MTP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge Keith Starrett, with referral to Judge Michael T. Parker.

Representing plaintiffs is John Arthur Eaves of the John Arthur Eaves Law Office, 101 North State Street, Jackson, MS 39201, Phone: (601) 355-7961, E-mail: johnjr@eaveslaw.com.

ROLLING STONES: Fan Files Lawsuit Over Cancelled N.J. Concert -------------------------------------------------------------A Rolling Stone fan has filed a class action against the band over the cancellation of one of its concert in Atlantic City, New Jersey, WGAL 8 Susquehanna Valley reports

Rosalie Druyan filed the suit at the Manhattan Supreme Court. Her complaint alleges that singer Mick Jagger, who came down with a sore throat that forced the cancellation of the show just four hours before its scheduled start, had sought medical advice and was aware that he might have to postpone the concert.

According Mrs. Druyan, she received a Ticketmaster e-mail on her BlackBerry notifying her of the cancellation when she was a few kilometers from Atlantic City. By then it was too late to cancel a $300 reservation at the Trump Taj Mahal and too rainy to drive back to Brooklyn (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 1, 2006).

Mrs. Druyan contends the late cancellation cost her and other fans a lot of money on non-refundable hotel reservations. She is seeking $51 million.

ROTONICS MANUFACTURING: Investor Files Calif. Suit Over Merger-------------------------------------------------------------- Rotonics Manufacturing, Inc. faces a purported class action in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles over its proposed merger with a subsidiary of Spell Capital Partners, LLC.

On Sept. 13, 2006, a person alleging to be a stockholder of the company filed a putative class action challenging aspects of the proposed merger.

The suit names the company and eight officers and directors of the company, together with Rotonics Holding Corp. and Spell Capital Partners Fund III LP, as defendants.

Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges generally that the proposed merger resulted from unfair dealing and the merger consideration of $3.00 was an inadequate purchase price.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action and various forms of declaratory, injunctive and an unspecified amount of monetary relief, including an injunction against consummation of the merger or, in the alternative, rescission of the transaction and imposition of a constructive trust.

Gardena, California-based Rotonics Manufacturing, Inc., (AMEX: RMI) -- http://www.rotonics.com/-- is in the business of manufacturing and marketing of plastic products for commercial, agricultural, refuse, pharmaceutical, marine, recreation, medical waste, healthcare, retail, recreation and residential use, as well as an array of custom-molded plastic products to customers in a variety of industries, located in diverse geographic markets. Its products include various types of storage tanks, bin lids, refuse containers for automated removal, medical waste containers, agricultural/livestock products, kayaks, outdoor polysteel lamp posts, furniture, planters and other rotonically molded items. The company has nine manufacturing locations in North America.

SOUTH DAKOTA: S.D. Court Nixes Suit Over Denied Financial Aid -------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota dismissed a purported class action filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), alleging that a rule, which denies students convicted of a drug crime from getting financial aid is unconstitutional, Carson Walker of The Associated Press reports.

In dismissing the suit, Judge Charles B. Kornmann ruled that drug-using college students are not entitled to receive financial aid, since such assistance is not an entitlement.

The judge specifically pointed out, "Persons convicted of drug trafficking or possession offenses are not a suspect class. ..." "The Constitution affords no right to a higher education," he concluded. "Likewise, there is no fundamental right to the receipt of federal student financial aid."

He also concluded that the Department of Education is justified in tying school funding to drug use because it's intended to deter drug-related crime on college campuses and "prevents taxpayer subsidization of such conduct."

Filed in March, the lawsuit affects every college student who applies for federal financial aid. In addition to the ACLU, Kraig Selken, a Northern State student and two college students from different states are named as plaintiffs in the legal action (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2006).

The case specifically challenges a provision in the Higher Education Act that denies financial aid to convicted drug offenders. The ACLU said that the provision is unconstitutional because it punishes people twice for the same crime and creates a class of people deemed unworthy of receiving federal financial aid for college without a good reason.

Put in place in 2000, the provision denies federal financial aid to any student for up to a year for their first drug conviction, and the penalties increase for second and third offenses.

After that time has passed students can qualify for federal financial aid again, but it's a rule ACLU think is unconstitutional. About 200,000 people nationwide have been denied financial aid since the provision went into effect.

Plaintiffs are considering whether to appeal the dismissal, according to Tom Angell, campaign director for Students for Sensible Drug Policy Foundation, which joined the ACLU in the lawsuit.

The suit is "Students For Sensible Drug Policy Foundation, et al. v. Spellings, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01010-CBK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota under Judge Charles B. Kornmann.

ST. LAWRENCE: Appeals Court Upholds Decision in Beauport Suit -------------------------------------------------------------St. Lawrence Cement acknowledges with reservations the decision rendered by the Quebec Court of Appeal, which partially upheld its challenge of the May 2003 Superior Court judgment in the class action filed by residents and property owners of Beauport, Quebec.

Plaintiffs alleged having suffered undue inconveniences and loss of property value from the operations of the St. Lawrence Cement plant in this municipality from 1991 to 1997.

The company is pleased that the Court of Appeal has granted its appeal in part and that it has reversed the legal foundation for the judgment of the Superior Court, namely that there would exist under Quebec civil law a no fault regime of liability for the inconveniences caused to neighbors.

However, since the company was using state-of-the art pollution control equipment and consistently complied with regulatory emission standards, the company deplores the ruling of the Court of Appeal that, under the particular circumstances of the case, one should infer from the reported dust fallouts, that the company's equipment was probably not maintained in optimal operating conditions at all times. According to the judgment, this would constitute a fault, which would make the company responsible for the inconveniences of its neighbors.

Regarding compensation to the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal has reduced by at least 20% the sums awarded by the Superior Court as it did not find any fault by the company in respect to noise complaints, and that the company could not be liable for some of the dust fallouts.

Subject to a closer reading of the judgment, St. Lawrence Cement will decide whether or not it intends to seek leave to appeal the judgment before the Supreme Court.

St. Lawrence Cement Group is a leading producer and supplier of products and services for the construction industry, namely cement, concrete, aggregates and construction. The company operates in Canada and on the eastern seaboard of the United States, and employs a total of 3,200 people.

UNITED STATES: Class Actions Costly, Threatens N.Y.'s Position--------------------------------------------------------------Class actions are one factor that is threatening New York's position as the world's financial capital, according to a jointly authored opinion piece by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Charles Schumer, the state's senior U.S. senator, Reuters reports.

Published in The Wall Street Journal, the opinion piece noted that data showing the total value of U.S. securities class actions or "frivolous suits" jumped to $9.6 billion last year, up from $150 million in 1997.

Both politicians pointed out in wrote that the United Kingdom and other countries have laws that far more effectively discourage "frivolous suits."

Class actions are proving very costly to big corporations that have faced it. Most of them insist that, even if they want to fight a case they consider meritless, it is often cheaper to settle rather than deal with the distraction and risks of a trial.

In recent years, the government has passed class-action reforms. These measures though have largely failed to curb the dominance of big plaintiffs' firms, some of whom recently secured record-setting settlements stemming from accounting frauds at Enron and WorldCom.

Pressure though is now mounting for more reform as businesses struggle under the weight of regulatory and legal pressures.

A case in point is the recent interview by Reuters of the CEO of auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, who said that the cost of litigation in the U.S. reached a point where he believes it is threatening U.S. competitiveness broadly.

Additionally, proposals have been drafted by two influential industry groups that seek to protect corporations and accounting firms from criminal cases brought by prosecutors and civil lawsuits brought by shareholders (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2006).

The proposals aim:

-- to limit the liability of accounting firms for work they do on behalf of clients,

-- to force prosecutors to target individual wrongdoers instead of companies, and

-- to scale back shareholder lawsuits.

Essentially, the proposals are attempts to scale back some of the requirements imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, according to an earlier report by Reuters.

One of the groups that made the proposals is a committee formed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The other group was formed by:

-- Harvard Law professor Hal Scott;

-- R. Glenn Hubbard, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors for President George W. Bush; and

-- John Thornton, a former president of Goldman Sachs, where he worked with current Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr.

Reportedly, some members of the groups said that they expect that the administration will use many of their recommendations to limit what they see as overzealous state prosecutions by figures such as New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and abusive class actions by investors.

Proposals

Among proposals now being considered by the groups is the possible elimination of shareholder securities fraud lawsuits under an anti-fraud rule, known as Rule 10b-5, and permitting only the Securities and Exchange Commission to bring these cases.

Yet another proposal would require some investor suits to be handled by arbitration panels, which typically close their sessions to the public. These panels have traditionally been seen as friendlier to defendants than trial courts.

Another proposal, according to published reports, is forcing prosecutors to target individuals instead of companies.

Reactions

Some legal experts, though, doubt such measures will find many backers. Class-action attorneys see reform efforts as a way to make it harder for investors to recoup losses and an attempt to put their firms out of business.

Others critics see the effort as part of a plan to cater to Bush Administration constituents. In addition they see it as a way to insulate politically connected companies from prosecution at the expense of investors (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2006).

Recent Litigation Trends

According to recently compiled data, the federal securities fraud class actions have fallen to a decade low. In the first six months of 2006, 61 cases were filed, 31 percent below 2005, according to legal consultant Cornerstone Research.

Even the widening stock options backdating scandal has not led to a deluge of securities fraud suits so far. Many plaintiffs' lawyers have turned instead to less-popular "derivative suits" in which investors sue on behalf of the company. Settlements in these cases are often much lower than in shareholder class actions.

Part of the reason for the overall decline could the May indictment of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2006). Since that time, the firm has lost about a third of its personnel, including 25 partners, closed several offices and been fired by big clients such as pension funds in New York and Ohio.

However, legal experts refute that statement, pointing out that Milberg Weiss is only part of the reason class actions have slowed. They pointed out that the improving economy and better governance practices in corporate America could explain why there are fewer cases.

Also, courts are dismissing more suits in the pretrial phase if they do not think they have merit, according to James Cox, a Duke Law School professor, who studies class-actions.

Despite the decline in class actions, corporate leaders still want new legal curbs because they remain a major headache. The suits are "a very expensive cost of doing business," says Arthur Jakoby, a partner at Herrick Feinstein LLP, which specializes in defending securities fraud class actions.

XL CAPITAL: Conn. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal Motion---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in a securities fraud suit filed against XL Capital Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut filed have opposed a motion to dismiss the suit.

On June 21, 2004, a consolidated and amended class action complaint was served on the company and certain of its present and former directors and officers as defendants in a putative class action, "Malin et al. v. XL Capital Ltd. et al.," filed in U.S. District Court for District of Connecticut.

The Malin Action purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between Nov. 1, 2001 and Oct. 16, 2003, and alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated the securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose in various public and shareholder and investor reports and other communications the alleged inadequacy of the company's loss reserves for its NAC Re subsidiary (now known as XL Reinsurance America, Inc.) and that, as a consequence, the company's earnings and assets were materially overstated.

On Aug. 26, 2005, the court dismissed the amended complaint owing to its failure adequately to allege "loss causation," but provided leave for the plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a second amended complaint, which is similar to the amended complaint in its substantive allegations.

On Dec. 31, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The plaintiffs have opposed the motion, according to the company's Aug. 9 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006.

The suit is "Malin et al. v. XL Capital Ltd. et al., Case no. 3:03-cv-02001-PCD," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, under Judge Peter C. Dorsey.

XL CAPITAL: Insurance Antitrust Suit Yet to Receive Class Status----------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in a multi-district insurance brokerage antitrust suit, which names XL Capital Ltd. as defendant, is awaiting a ruling on a motion to certify the suit as a class action.

In the MDL, named plaintiffs have asserted various claims purportedly, on behalf of a class of commercial insureds against approximately 113 insurance companies and insurance brokers through which the named plaintiffs allegedly purchased insurance.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendant insurance companies and insurance brokers conspired to manipulate bidding practices for insurance policies in certain insurance lines and failed to disclose certain commission arrangements. The named plaintiffs have asserted statutory claims under the Sherman Act, various state antitrust laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as common law claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

Discovery in the MDL continues. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint in late November 2005. On Feb. 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to further amend their amended complaint to, among other things, add additional defendants, including:

-- X.L. America, Inc., and -- XL Insurance America, Inc.

That motion was denied without prejudice. On or about Feb. 13, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification. Defendants filed an opposition to the class certification motion, as well as a separate motion seeking to exclude the testimony of the expert witness upon whom plaintiffs have relied in seeking class certification.

These motions are presently pending before the court, according to the company's Aug. 9 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006. Discovery has been proceeding since the fall of 2005.

* Few Attorneys General Object to Settlement Under CAFA------------------------------------------------------- Few attorneys have exercised the power to object to class action settlements under the newly enacted Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Peter Geier of The National Law Journal writes.

CAFA, which took effect on January 2005, extends federal jurisdiction over class actions. It also requires defendants to notify state attorneys general and federal regulators of proposed settlement agreements to prevent attorneys from crafting abusive settlements favoring lawyers over consumers.

But so far, only Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist has invoked the power to object to a settlement under CAFA. The attorney general objected to a proposed coupon settlement over undisclosed automatic surcharges improperly added to guest bills at hotels run by Wyndham International Inc.

In July, the office announced a $2.3 million settlement, instead. The suit is "State of Florida v. Wyndham International Inc., No. 02-CA-1296 (Leon Co., Fla., Cir. Ct.)."

Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, and California have not formally objected to a settlement since the new law took effect, according to the article.

Regarding jurisdiction, the article states that in the area of private class action, there are those who suggest that CAFA could become a powerful tool by plaintiffs and public interest lawyers, and even attorneys general, because of the greater access that CAFA's settlement-review provision gives them into corporate practices and behavior.

New Securities Fraud Cases

APOLLO GROUP: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing in Ariz. ---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Apollo Group, Inc. (APOL) between Nov. 28, 2001 and Oct. 18, 2006.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against defendant Apollo Group, Inc. and one or more of its officers and/or directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the class period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Jan. 2, 2007 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.

CONNETICS CORP: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing----------------------------------------------------------------The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, announces that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities of Connetics Corp. between June 28, 2004 and July 9, 2006. The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Connetics. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

WARNER CHILCOTT: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing ----------------------------------------------------------------Federman & Sherwood announces that on Nov. 1, 2006, a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Warner Chilcott Limited (WCRX).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from Sept. 20, 2006 through Sept. 25, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Jan. 2, 2007, for appointment as a lead plaintiff.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.